From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A97913856DC0 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:31:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A97913856DC0 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1666377076; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=opE9iJLrxF7QsOBCiCD7Z7yjaWhjDsiXsQvCbq8Jgrs=; b=K6buENzrmfrRaCpDdQ6tekEaA0oST2MwCTo6YDO/6UcE45JAvWuXHpTPoHBByYrHRlsCEy LZKM+nzkOfG4r3+ZFFDMYEM0FGtFLMeO6ZHztE/Kr1NZ/zzImOiMJKS6m5VKYWh8Pnj43R 4QcVWgIEkPUeu8+4ehr0DW2FcY2Stxo= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-571-6F3V6WfLOM6ePE05tdcDlg-1; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:31:12 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 6F3V6WfLOM6ePE05tdcDlg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D81CE101E14D; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:31:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.74]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 288E84A9266; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:31:11 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Joseph Myers Cc: Subject: Re: C2x features status References: Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:31:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Joseph Myers's message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:30:50 +0000") Message-ID: <874jvx81w2.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Joseph Myers: > I'm working on adding various C2x features to the C front end (and=20 > elsewhere in GCC as applicable). > > I suspect I won't get all the C2x features done for GCC 13. If anyone=20 > else is interested in adding C2x features, I'd encourage looking at some= =20 > of the following, which I may well not get to for GCC 13 (and posting her= e=20 > to avoid duplication of effort if working on such a feature): > > * Bit-precise integer types (_BitInt) (see bug 102989) (integrated versio= n=20 > based on N2763, plus literal suffixes from N2775 and bit-fields from=20 > N2969). Would require working with back-end maintainers and upstream ABI= =20 > groups, where available, to get ABIs defined for as many architectures as= =20 > possible, as well as some default ABI choice in GCC for architectures tha= t=20 > haven't defined the ABI for these types. > > * [[unsequenced]] and [[reproducible]] attributes for function types. Se= e=20 > N2956. These are supposed to be similar to const and pure attributes, at= =20 > least in the absence of pointer and array function parameters (but note= =20 > they never affect type compatibility). > > * Tag compatibility (N3037, alternative wording). Martin Uecker might=20 > have patches for a draft version of this? > > * Preprocessor #embed (N3017) (see bug 105863). Do you have a list of C2X features that are likely to impact autoconf tests? Or planned changes in the GCC 13 and 14 default language modes that reject constructs previous accepted as an extension? I'm asking because I'm working on the implicit function declaration problem once more, and other things could be piggybacked on the tool support over time. See the parallel =E2=80=9CC89isms in the test suite=E2= =80=9D thread. I wonder if anything went into the default C2X language mode already that could be similarly disruptive as the removal of implicit ints? In that case, I should probably backport that change into my GCC test version. (To avoid chasing ghosts, it's based off GCC 12, I've decided to decouple it from our planned switch to GCC 13.) Thanks, Florian